The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasised the inherent limits of judicial intervention in matters of faith, observing that courts must tread cautiously before pronouncing on the validity of religious beliefs followed by large sections of society.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while hearing a reference arising from the Sabarimala temple entry issue.
The Bench remarked that one of the most complex tasks for a constitutional court is how to declare the beliefs of millions as “wrong or erroneous”, underlining the institutional restraint required in such cases. It also cautioned that religion cannot be stripped of its core practices in the name of social reform.
During the hearing, the judges raised concerns over the maintainability of public interest litigations in religious matters. The CJI pointed to the difficulty of courts adjudicating on deeply held beliefs, while Justice Sundresh questioned whether such issues could be decided without hearing representatives of the faith concerned. Justice Nagarathna, echoing similar concerns, indicated that courts should be wary of entertaining petitions by those who are not directly affected, and warned against hollowing out religious traditions under the guise of social welfare.
The reference before the Bench arises from the 2018 Constitution Bench verdict that permitted entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala shrine, setting aside a long-standing restriction on women of menstruating age. The ruling led to widespread protests and multiple review petitions. In 2019, the top court, while dealing with these review pleas, kept the core controversy open and referred larger constitutional questions to a nine-judge Bench.
These include the scope of the “essential religious practices” doctrine, the interplay between religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 and the right to equality under Article 14, as well as the apparent divergence between earlier rulings such as the Shirur Mutt and Durgah Committee cases.
Appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the essential religious practices test has led to inconsistency in judicial decisions. He submitted that once courts invoke concepts such as “essential” or “integral”, they necessarily enter into theological classification, effectively empowering judges to determine the contours of religion.
He contended that constitutional regulation of religious practices can instead be achieved through the limitations of public order, health and morality, without requiring courts to dissect religious doctrine. Singhvi further argued that practices forming part of a religion’s genuine and traceable traditions should not be invalidated on subjective notions of morality, unless they fall foul of constitutional restrictions. The arguments will continue on Thursday.
